MBTI profiling and relationships
silent pro
apparent accuracy of various test (MBTI etc.)
is there any basis to the compatibility of various types lending
themselves to a more successful partnership? If so, what are the
various compatible types as far as latest research dictates?
sw
Rolf Marvin Bře Lindgren
| I've been reading more and more about personality types, and the
| apparent accuracy of various test (MBTI etc.)
take a look at the Big 5 personality taxonomy if you're really
interested.
| is there any basis to the compatibility of various types lending
| themselves to a more successful partnership? If so, what are the
| various compatible types as far as latest research dictates?
the MBTI is hardly used for research anymore. what I would suggest on
an MBTI basis is that the S goes with S and N goes with N, the rest of
the alphabet does not matter nearly as much.
--
0.7I 0.75N 0.9T 0.8P Solar sign: Capricorn/Ascendant: Leo
I'm a Capricorn, therefore I do not believe in Astrology.
I'm an INTP, therefore I do not believe in the MBTI.
Stephen Diamond
sile...@email.com (silent pro) wrote:
For an elaborate scheme differing significantly from the MBTI, see www.
socionics.com.
Relationships between each type is predicted systematically. Whether
accurately or not is another question, of course. But, check out to see
how it fits. I'd be interested in impressions.
Stephen Diamond
Rodney Reid
The 30 second answer from the MBTI side:
------------
Extroverted with Introverted,
Sensing with Sensing, Intuitive with Intuitive, except in cases of complete
opposites. The stronger the N or S pull for each partner the more likely
they are to want the same (S or N).
Thinking with Feeling
Judging with Percieving.
-------------
so that comes out to be, for complete opposites:
ISTJ->ENFP ESTJ->INFP
ISTP->ENFJ ESTP->INFJ
ISFP->ENTJ ESFP->INTJ
ISFJ->ENTP ESFJ->INTP
for opposites matched by Intuitive or Sensing:
ISTJ->ESFP ENTJ->INFP
ISTP->ESFJ ENTP->INFJ
ISFP->ESTJ ENFP->INTJ
ISFJ->ESTP ENFJ->INTP
However, hard and fast rules do not the world make. In my own experiences,
INTPs, INTJs didn't work out, and I've only had ENFPs and INFPs as opposite
sex friends. The total opposite, ISFJ, worked for many years. N=1.
some more websites which discuss this:
http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/
http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/mating.htm
some books which discuss this:
I'd like to learn more about the Big 5 (psych's newest personality typing),
there doesn't seem to be any books written for the layman about it yet. If
anyone out there knows of any out there, easily accessable and worth looking
at, drop me a line.
...Rodney (ENTP happily dating his intuitive opposite, a INFJ)
"silent pro" <sile...@email.com> wrote in message
news:e4a2ac27.0208...@posting.google.com...
Operation Bomberclad
chart at Socionics.com has anything to do with: "relationships." It
is entirely egotistical to assume that a conscious element can somehow
control the outcome of the interaction between two types, or the
unconscious intertwining of archetypal material between two persons.
The outcome of interaction between two types is determined, as is the
collective unconscious of each person. But the variation of their
differentiation and position of their respective collective situations
makes all the difference.
Socionics is attempting to underscore how two types might interact and
their outcome, but not outline the compatibility between the sexes.
In Jungian terms, a relationship with the opposite sex is a banal
collective situation which comes under the influence of the mother
archetype. This is also supported by the psychological aspects of the
Kore, which deals with the mother-daughter relationship and its
activity in the unconscious.
Apparently, in Jungian psychology it is the mother archtype in either
individual which influences the outcome of the relationship. The
Intertype Relations Chart on Socionics.com is interesting, but does
not comprise the much more complicated tableau of constellated
archtypal material in society and will only have talismanic value in
determining the suitability of a mate.
I can sympathise, however if someone is under the influence of their
lonliness or isolation and attempts to rectify their situation by
pining for something out of their reach. May as well just keep
checking people out visually and hope for the best using common sense.
The rest is almost completely out of your control.
Respectfully,
Fran
Stephen Diamond <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<stephend15-7D16D...@news.mindspring.com>...
Rodney Reid
This message was left undone when all I wanted to do was save a draft of it.
Oh well.
FYI - I'm going on vacation tomorrow and unlikely to finish it.
...Rodney
"Rodney Reid" <rr...@tsoft.com> wrote in message
news:umicpnq...@corp.supernews.com...
Garitaar
I wish I had understood the substantial advantage on professional and personal choices using MB early in life - I am sure I would have made some different choices.
useful links
http://www.16types.com/learning/
I'm still deciphering this one.
http://socionika.adelaida.net/relation.html
See the Type Relations section at the bottom of the page that describes you.
http://typelogic.com/
Alain Figer
> I wish I had understood the substantial advantage on professional and
personal
> choices using MB early in life - I am sure I would have made some
different
> choices.
Not a proof that they would have been decidedly better !
Alain Figer
Stephen Diamond
fra...@shaw.ca (Operation Bomberclad) wrote:
I didn't construe the poster's phrase "successful partnership" as
pertaining specifically (or mainly) to romantic relationships. Perhaps I
read the posting too literally.
Stephen Diamond
Operation Bomberclad
> pertaining specifically (or mainly) to romantic relationships. Perhaps I
> read the posting too literally.
>
> Stephen Diamond
I guess I reacted too quickly when attempting to clarify the concept
of relations/relationships between people and the possible influences
via the collective unconscious. In a way, I am staking out a claim
here, so forgive me if I seem to come in out of left field.
In a manner of speaking, a relation could be deemed quite successful
if it was filled with conflicting opinion and misunderstanding under
the Intertype Relations Chart. It is merely the outcome of the
interaction between two people with a determined set of preferences.
I think this is borne out by Jungian theory, which would contradict
the wishful notion that somehow relationships can be improved upon
between two people if their type preferences were in some way
manipulated. If the Intertype Relations Chart has any value, it is to
demonstrate that neither party is responsible for the other's
behaviour in the outcome of a relation, barring any social controls a
person might have over another. (That may be where the difficulty
lies.)
I believe that it would go a very long way to alleviate guilt over
mistakes made in relations between two people if it could be shown
that such outcomes exist and can be illuminated.
For example, if you knew your friend's type and his mother's were
conflicting relations, you could point out the difficulties that might
pose a child during a developmental stage and that they are not
responsible for the outcome or the conflicts that may have arisen. It
could also simplify the process of understanding.
I think that is where the value in personality type lies, not in
profiling for any purpose because it may just be wishful thinking.
Stephen Diamond
You are saying I think, that two misuses of the typology should be
avoided: manipulating a person's type and profiling. The socionics
people clearly advocate profiling, although they would clearly reject
type manipulation, viewing type as a given.
Someone posted that the primary developer of the socionics approach was
a close collaborator of Jung's. I don't know if this is true.
Regardless, I think it is possible that the typology has value, when (or
even when) is is ripped away from its Jungian underpinnings, just as the
intraversion-extraversion concept has become standard fare, even though
its justification by (say) the factor analysts has very little Jungian
flavor. It is (empirically) an open question whether Jung's typological
observations were _really_ generated through the methods of analytic
psychology, or were unrelated observations expressed in that idiom.
I'm not a Jungian, and frankly the only part of Jung that interests me
(and which does not seem either a mystification of psychoanalysis or
part of Jung's compromise with religion) is his typology. The socionics
group seems to have done the most to develop it as a typology. The MBTI,
as far as I'm concerned, treats type as a heuristic. It doesn't make
_predictions_ about the types, but only plots their correlates.
Socionics has real theoretical structure.
I found the relational claims of socionics strangely prescient. But, it
is easy to see pattern confirmed whether there is really only
randomness, as witness the number of people who are impressed with
astrology.
srd
Alain Figer
"Stephen Diamond" <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> I found the relational claims of socionics strangely prescient. But, it
> is easy to see pattern confirmed whether there is really only
> randomness, as witness the number of people who are impressed with
> astrology.
Yes, and this is long known as the "Forer effect" or "Barnum's".
http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html
And I find the inter-relational "laws" derived at guess by Socionics or
others just as impressive as horoscopes are !
I am convinced they are entirely useless, except just for fun.
Alain Figer
Garitaar
Of course this is correct, just as applying knowledge of designing a building to withstand earthquakes does not guarantee that the building will never fall. I believe, however, that one can improve the probability of success in relationships by understanding what chemistry one should expect, which I believe MB provides. gari...@hotmail.com
Stephen Diamond
"Garitaar" <gari...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm interested in which version of the typology makes predictions better
in accord with your experience, the MBTI system or the socionics system
(www.socionics.com).
Stephen Diamond
Stephen Diamond
"Alain Figer" <fg...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
Are you convinced based on your perceptions regarding its accuracy, the
lack of scientific validation, the lack of rigor of the derivations, or
the lack of face validity of for the scheme? Or all of the above?
It is hard to tell how rigorous the derivations are from the socionics
site; not enough of the theory is presented. I think that the
classification system has enough plausibility that IF rigorous
derivations were to be had, THEN the idea would deserve to be taken
seriously, i.e. subjected to formal scientific testing.
I find horoscopes not in the least impressive. If you make an honest
assessment of the "sign" of a person before knowing their birthdate, it
is obvious that the description the person best matches is NOT the one
predicted, not any more often than you would expect by chance. And
that's bracketing the fundamental absurdity of the "theory."
Socionics makes different predictions than MBTI. They can't both be
right. There is the question of which better instantiates the underlying
model. And, if you use an approach similar to what I suggested for
astrology, take the predictions of each, and ask whether the "data"
seems *better* to support one or the other, the Forer effect can prehaps
be neutralized or controlled. If it seems each predicts well, and
neither better than the other, then whatever order seems to exist can be
explained away. Only if one seems to come out markedly better than the
other should the "experiment" induce any significant degree of belief.
Scientifically respected personality factors have been interpreted as
instantiating parts of the typology. Introversion-extraversion is very
robust, of course. Also, however, R.B. Cattell thought that the
personality factor protected emotional sensitivity versus tough realism
reflects the feeling versus thinking type distinction. Similarly the
autia-praxernia factor was interpreted as reflecting N versus S.
Stephen Diamond
Operation Bomberclad
> instantiating parts of the typology. Introversion-extraversion is very
> robust, of course. Also, however, R.B. Cattell thought that the
> personality factor protected emotional sensitivity versus tough realism
> reflects the feeling versus thinking type distinction. Similarly the
> autia-praxernia factor was interpreted as reflecting N versus S.
>
> Stephen Diamond
There is a problem with both MBTI and Socionics in determining the
outcome of intertype relations or even attempting to determine the
compatibility between two distinct personality types. The
distribution of types is uneven, so that even if you were able to
match up people according to their profiles, then many prospective
partners would be out of luck.
There is another problem with type profiles, is that they have
abandoned the theory of the collective unconscious. The conscious
attitude is represented by the scale of either introverted or
extraverted autia-praxernia, if you will. Introversion or
Extraversion do not stand alone. Typology takes on the hue of
representing the conscious mind, when this was not the intention from
the beginning. There is also a separation into "functions" of
unconscious secondary and tertiary formations, such as feeling or
thinking, which is misleading. Personality type is a reflection of
unconscious formation within the archetype of the "self." Jung also
states that this is an empirical notion and points to the sympathetic
nervous system as the origin of the formation of preferences within
the collective unconscious.
The science of the day was not advanced enough to prove any of his
theory, but if you take this article as an indicator that the
collective unconscious exists, then you may have a basis for
determining the outcome of intertype relations.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/08/30/financial0919EDT0060.DTL
But as in everything, there is a much wider tableau of activity within
the collective unconscious of the psyche of each person. There is
also the sometimes prohibitive action of social controls which create
the necessity of adaptation to a specific collective situation which
has both underpinnings in constellated archtypes in society and strict
artificial or necessitous boundaries.
(Sorry about the wording, I am running out of vocabulary)
MBTI or Socionics can be a good stepping stone to understanding the
immediate consequences of Introversion or Extraversion, and as a
short-hand for determining the conscious attitude. Socionics has the
unique ability to point out that the outcome of events between two
persons are likely determined. But neither can answer to the problem
presented by an opposite, undifferentiated attitude. It is like
pointing to the crest of the wave and ingoring the importance of the
trough as its counterpart on a vast sea of interpersonal relations.
Fran
Alain Figer
> >
> > Yes, and this is long known as the "Forer effect" or "Barnum's".
> > http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html
> > I am convinced they are entirely useless, except just for fun.
>
> Are you convinced based on your perceptions regarding its accuracy, the
> lack of scientific validation, the lack of rigor of the derivations, or
> the lack of face validity of for the scheme? Or all of the above?
Thank you for your interesting question . :-)
Here are the basics of my opinion, in 2 points.
First, from a theoretical point of view :
- lack of scientific methodology
- use (= 'abuse') of the spurious notion of type
- no validation seeked by the authors further than the Barnum effect.
Second, from a pratical point of view :
- no real applicability (who knows the 'true' type of somebody, since for
most
of the people you can adopt a set of 2, 3 or 4 possible type candidates ;
moreover people as a rule disagree about one's type, when independent
observations are made)
- no confirmation by my own observations involving people whose type may
be assessed, due to an agreement between independent observers
(possibly 15 to 20% in the whole population).
Additional comments :
1) it may happen that for several years an interpersonal relation has been
functionning very well, and that 10 or 30 years later it will be no more.
That means : at times this kind of occurrence will confirm the "law" and at
others it will contradict the 'law'. In fact, there is no law.
2) temperamental factors are probably not the key factors for the quality of
whatever interpersonal relation. In some cases they may have had a strong
incidence, and in others a not so strong one. The first step would be to
assess
which part of the whole variance is accounted by temperamental factors.
My guess : 30%, whereas environmental factors would be significantly higher
than this figure.
> or the lack of face validity
I have been working for more than one year on an attempt of scientific
validation
of the results derived by experts from 'reading face'.
Still in progress => I will be able to tell you about later.
Alain Figer
Alain Figer
>> Not a proof that they would have been decidedly better !
>> Alain Figer
> Of course this is correct, just as applying knowledge of designing a
building to
> withstand earthquakes does not guarantee that the building will never
fall.
> I believe, however, that one can improve the probability of success in
> relationships by understanding what chemistry one should expect, which I
> believe MB provides.
In French language, we use to say : "comparison is no reason" (comparaison
n'est pas raison).
And unhappily MBTI is neither engineering nor chemistry.
It is no hard science, just another pseudo-science.
What has some validity in the MBTI is part of the taxonomy used : the 4
factors in the MBTI are about equivalent to 4 from the 5 "big factors"
scientifically assessed by researchers in the last 25 years. It is a good
point for the MBTI, since 4 out of 5 have been successfully guessed.
But, portraying the types without a scientific method has not given
convincing results. The validity of the portraits relies mainly on the Forer
effect, not on a rigorous scientific validation.
Alain Figer
Stephen Diamond
"Alain Figer" <fg...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> "Garitaar" <gari...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Not a proof that they would have been decidedly better !
> >> Alain Figer
>
> > Of course this is correct, just as applying knowledge of designing
> > a building to withstand earthquakes does not guarantee that the
> > building will never fall. I believe, however, that one can improve
> > the probability of success in relationships by understanding what
> > chemistry one should expect, which I believe MB provides.
>
> In French language, we use to say : "comparison is no reason"
> (comparaison n'est pas raison). And unhappily MBTI is neither
> engineering nor chemistry. It is no hard science, just another
> pseudo-science.
>
> What has some validity in the MBTI is part of the taxonomy used : the 4
> factors in the MBTI are about equivalent to 4 from the 5 "big factors"
> scientifically assessed by researchers in the last 25 years. It is a good
> point for the MBTI, since 4 out of 5 have been successfully guessed.
How do you think they line up exactly?
>
> But, portraying the types without a scientific method has not given
> convincing results. The validity of the portraits relies mainly on the Forer
> effect, not on a rigorous scientific validation.
>
But doesn't this contradict the paragraph immediately previous? If the
factors are equivalent to four of the big five, THEN there *is* more
validity than can be attributed to the Forer effect.
To the best of my knowledge there has not been a lot of factor analytic
work on the compatibility of persons with various profiles in personal
relationships. IF (and I haven't assessed this claim) the factors line
up, that provides construct validity for the underlying theory, and
might legitimately lead one to wonder whether the predictions as to
personal relations that can be derived from the theory also bear out.
Stephen Diamond
Rolf Marvin Bře Lindgren
| But doesn't this contradict the paragraph immediately previous? If the
| factors are equivalent to four of the big five, THEN there *is* more
| validity than can be attributed to the Forer effect.
they are by no means _equivalent_. there is some relationship between
each of the four dimensions of the MBTI and a corresponding Big 5
factor, but the correlations are not very high.
Alain Figer
>> It is no hard science, just another pseudo-science.
>> What has some validity in the MBTI is part of the taxonomy used :
>> the 4 factors in the MBTI are about equivalent to 4 from the 5
>> "big factors" scientifically assessed by researchers in the last 25
years.
>>It is a good point for the MBTI, since 4 out of 5 have been successfully
guessed.
>
> How do you think they line up exactly?
In " 5 ans de Bulletin MBTI - 1995-1999 " by Osiris Conseil, the authors
allude to a study by Donald Johnson in 1990-91 (but without any relevant
reference) quoting these figures as for the correlation ratios :
" E/I and Extraversion : .67
S/N and Openness : .61
T/F and Agreeableness : .40
J/P and Conscientiousness : .56 "
In fact I have no idea about the accurate methodologic procedures used in
that study, if any !
Yet the results sound relatively plausible. In any case the line-up is not
exact.
However that approximative fit is a rather good point to credit to Jung's
intuitions ; I must say that, taking in account the procedures Jung (has
not) followed, he could have done a much worse job, as he consistently did
in other areas (see his spurious believe in astrology, as an example !).
>> But, portraying the types without a scientific method has
>> not given convincing results. The validity of the portraits relies mainly
on the Forer
>> effect, not on a rigorous scientific validation.
>>
> But doesn't this contradict the paragraph immediately previous?
> If the factors are equivalent to four of the big five, THEN > there *is*
more validity than can be attributed to the Forer effect.
The bit of validity that exists is assessed only for the first part of the
job : the taxonomy used. But there is no validation to date as for the
second part : deriving accurate portraits for typing people. The fact, that
the big factors used may have some validity, doesn't imply whatever
scientific validity for the guessed portraits. It is entirely another job.
Moreover, there is no consensus about those portraits : see their dramatic
variability on the internet. If the portrait doesn't fit you, you may look
for another that would fit much better.
[That would make endless the task of proving all of them more than
doubtful].
We know the lack of validity of Astrologic portraits as well as Enneagram's.
Why MBTI portraits would have more validity, since the MBTIists themselves
say something like that :
<< if you do not recognize yourself well in the portrait , then redo the
test and even change the preferences found after the test >> ?
This way of reasoning is no science, just pseudo-science. Yet pseudo-science
happens to work, at least from times to times. Just you don't know when it
is true, and when it is wrong. This is a rather big concern, isn't it ?
> IF (and I haven't assessed this claim) the factors line up, > that
provides construct validity for the underlying theory,
First, the factors do not line up " very " well : an important big factor,
Neuroticism, was not recognized, although for example Heymans-Le Senne (same
epoch as Jung's) did already find it as a big factor.
Second, you may consider the 4 factors, while 'making the economy' of the
entire MBTI theory [you can discard it] for its strong weaknesses [in fact I
rate it as just bunk].
Taking apart the 4 factors disregarding the Jungian and MB's theory would
probably be considered as a nonsense by Jung and MB. In fact, the truth is
just the opposite : the problem lies essentially in the claimed " theory "
accompanying the Jungian taxonomy. This pseudo " theory " has been
essentially guessed, not scientifically tested by the authors. It is just
speculation, with weaknesses easy to point out (ordering of functions, and
so on).
> and might legitimately lead one to wonder whether the predictions as to
personal
> relations that can be derived from the theory also bear out.
I think it is too simplistic a view. You have to assess first what
satisfactory " personal relations " are and what may play a role on them,
then prove all of it, before to go further and to jump to formal
conclusions. Temperamental traits are only a small part of the picture. It
can be anticipated, from the scientific literature, that environmental and
motivation factors will play a more decisive role than just the
temperamental traits. Taking for granted that only the 4 factors of the MBTI
are the alpha and the omega of interpersonal relations is a good
illustration why the Socionics 'work' has no solid fundation, and can do no
good job. Yet the Forer effect will presumably bring them some success among
non-scientists.
Alain Figer
Stephen Diamond
"Alain Figer" <fg...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
Well, the validity of a measure can't exceed its reliability. If the
portraits could not reliably be matched up with individuals, then scores
based on the portraits could not achieve moderate correlations with big
five factors. It is possible, however, that the correlations with the
big five are lower, since nothing was cited in their support.
>
> [That would make endless the task of proving all of them more than
> doubtful].
>
> We know the lack of validity of Astrologic portraits as well as Enneagram's.
> Why MBTI portraits would have more validity, since the MBTIists themselves
> say something like that :
>
> << if you do not recognize yourself well in the portrait , then redo the
> test and even change the preferences found after the test >> ?
>
> This way of reasoning is no science, just pseudo-science. Yet pseudo-science
> happens to work, at least from times to times. Just you don't know when it
> is true, and when it is wrong. This is a rather big concern, isn't it ?
It sounds to be that you are identifying what is sometimes called the
context of discovery with the context of proof, which I think is an
error.
"Validity" in the statistical sense pertains to relationships among
measures. A theory can be true without having validated its measures.
And, there are fortunately other ways of judging the plausibility of a
theory besides scientific testing. Otherwise, scientists would have to
pick hypotheses at random to test.
Surely whether the typology contains substantial truth is independent of
whether astrology is true. Surely one of the bases to rationally judge
the plausibility of an hypothesis PRIOR to scientific testing is to
compare the theories predictions to one's experience AND to consider
whether the underpinnings are sound. (There are ways to neutralize the
Forer effect, such as to always compare one theory to an equally
structured alternative.)
>
> > IF (and I haven't assessed this claim) the factors line up, > that
> provides construct validity for the underlying theory,
>
> First, the factors do not line up " very " well : an important big factor,
> Neuroticism, was not recognized, although for example Heymans-Le Senne (same
> epoch as Jung's) did already find it as a big factor.
But, it also is less clear for Neuroticism than for the other factors
that it is a dimension of *temperament.*
>
> Second, you may consider the 4 factors, while 'making the economy' of the
> entire MBTI theory [you can discard it] for its strong weaknesses [in fact I
> rate it as just bunk].
>
> Taking apart the 4 factors disregarding the Jungian and MB's theory would
> probably be considered as a nonsense by Jung and MB. In fact, the truth is
> just the opposite : the problem lies essentially in the claimed " theory "
> accompanying the Jungian taxonomy. This pseudo " theory " has been
> essentially guessed, not scientifically tested by the authors. It is just
> speculation, with weaknesses easy to point out (ordering of functions, and
> so on).
Again re discovery vs. testing: the fact that a theory has not been
tested does not mean it has been guessed. To take an extreme example
just to make the point clearly, general relativity in physics was not
merely "guessed" before it was tested. There were, you might say,
non-experimental arguments in its favor, to the point that Einstein said
that if experiment went against him, he would reject experiment and not
the theory. This is not necessarily an irrational attitude. A theory is
never regarded as scientifically proven without being empirically
tested, but that doesn't mean a theory is not *scientific* without being
tested. Nor is it to say that science exhausts the realm of rational
belief. Many ideas may be too vague to be tested, or nobody might be
clever enough to discover how to test the theory, but there might be
reasons to think it true nevertheless.
The reason for rejecting astrology is NOT that it hasn't been tested.
Actually, it has, and has been disproven, but before anyone bothered to
waste his time testing astrology, there was overwhelmingly strong reason
to reject the theory, NOT because it fails to be science in the strict
sense, but because it is idiotic. I don't think the same can be said of
the typology.
I do think the MBTI is psychometrically speaking a lousy test, and that
one who grasps the constructs can do a better job typing a person than
the MBTI. Probably much better. (For example, I can pretty much tell
already that you are an ISTJ. Your test results probably would NOT
persuade me otherwise. ;) )
>
> > and might legitimately lead one to wonder whether the predictions as to
> personal
>
> > relations that can be derived from the theory also bear out.
>
> I think it is too simplistic a view. You have to assess first what
> satisfactory " personal relations " are and what may play a role on them,
> then prove all of it, before to go further and to jump to formal
> conclusions. Temperamental traits are only a small part of the picture. It
> can be anticipated, from the scientific literature, that environmental and
> motivation factors will play a more decisive role than just the
> temperamental traits. Taking for granted that only the 4 factors of the MBTI
> are the alpha and the omega of interpersonal relations is a good
> illustration why the Socionics 'work' has no solid fundation, and can do no
> good job. Yet the Forer effect will presumably bring them some success among
> non-scientists.
There is nothing in the theory to suggest that type is the only or even
the primary cause of interpersonal harmony or conflict.
Stephen Diamond
Rolf Marvin Bře Lindgren
| In " 5 ans de Bulletin MBTI - 1995-1999 " by Osiris Conseil, the authors
| allude to a study by Donald Johnson in 1990-91 (but without any relevant
| reference) quoting these figures as for the correlation ratios :
this seems to be very much in line with Costa & McCrae's classical
article from 1989. sorry I haven't got the complete reference her, but
it's been cited her many times and will probably be found by a Google
search.
Alain Figer
>
> If the portraits could not reliably be matched up with individuals,
> then scores based on the portraits could not achieve moderate correlations
> with big five factors.
The scores are mainly based on answers to tests relative to each *factor*
(correlation of MB factors to Big 5's), without the need of the portraits.
Hence nothing relevant can be inferred about the reliability of the
portraits.
> But, it also is less clear for Neuroticism than for the other factors
> that it is a dimension of *temperament.*
Please give further "personal" support to that opinion.
> (...) you are identifying what is sometimes called the
> context of discovery with the context of proof (...)
I don't think so. (You may have had this impression, but please read
carefully my posts from the beginning).
> A theory can be true without having validated its measures.
Yes, of course.
> Surely whether the typology contains substantial truth is independent of
> whether astrology is true.
Agreed, again.
> the fact that a theory has not been
> tested does not mean it has been guessed.
Agreed.
And such as for my other OKs, it doesn't contradict what I was saying.
> The reason for rejecting astrology is NOT that it hasn't been tested.
> Actually, it has, and has been disproven, but before anyone bothered to
> waste his time testing astrology, there was overwhelmingly strong reason
> to reject the theory, NOT because it fails to be science in the strict
> sense, but because it is idiotic.
It is like I had already read it somewhere. :-)
I agree with you that astrology is bunk, but I can't definitely agree
with all what you are saying here. For example, "it is idiotic" is a mere
opinion of yours, whereas Jung himself favoured the opposite opinion
about the astrological theory ; I have no reason to take your opinion
as more granted than Jung's.
I would like to know if you really think it makes much sense to write :
"NOT because it fails to be science in the strict sense, but because
it is idiotic". What is the difference between things once considered
as "evidence" by most of people, and the same things considered as
"idiotic" for most of people, a few centuries later ?
In any case much of the MBTI theory (ordering of functions for example)
seems to be as arbitrary and as unfounded as the astrological theory.
> I don't think the same can be said of the typology.
It may largely depend on the use you hope to do with that typology.
The fact that something is partially correct, or not entirely wrong,
doesn't mean it can be useful. As an example, the 7-day weather forecast
is often given in France with no more than a claimed 40% reliability.
Is it really useful to have an information not entirely wrong, but more
often proven false than true ?
> I do think the MBTI is psychometrically speaking a lousy test, and that
> one who grasps the constructs can do a better job typing a person than
> the MBTI. Probably much better.
Maybe or maybe not.
It's funny to observe such "experts" as they use to type well-known people
such as : Bill Clinton, François Mitterrand, Balzac, Jung, etc. . All of
them are convinced they are much better themselves than others in typing.
Yet they are largely disagreeing between them. It's a very good example of
self-delusion. And of the complete lack of reliability of their 'art'.
> (For example, I can pretty much tell already that you are an ISTJ.
> Your test results probably would NOT persuade me otherwise. ;) )
LOL.
(of course it's just humor, and I take it as humor)
Several years ago, on this NG, somebody told me "with no more than
one chance in a million to be wrong" I were an INTP, although he knew I did
not test as an INTP !! In fact neither did I test as an ISTJ.
Who is to be believed ?
At odds with you, many MBTIists have no humor and believe to be able to
grasp
any personality, just from a few lines written about a specific subject in a
specific circumstance on the internet. It is meaningless of course, and a
good example of self-delusion.
Once, on another NG, somebody wanted me to send him a photograph of
myself, for he claimed he was able to know my astrological sign just
after my photo !!
Then I asked him :
" and so what if your determination would happen to be wrong ??"
- "I would immediately make another attempt" he replied, adding :
"As a rule I rarely need more than 3 or 4 attempts to be true".
No comment, except that many MBTIists seem to behave exactly the same. ;-)
> There is nothing in the theory to suggest that type is the only or even
> the primary cause of interpersonal harmony or conflict.
If the variability of the types does not have much incidence on
interpersonal
harmony or conflict, which is the practical use of predictions based on
claimed 'type compatibility' ?
Alain Figer
Stephen Diamond
"Alain Figer" <fg...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> > The reason for rejecting astrology is NOT that it hasn't been tested.
> > Actually, it has, and has been disproven, but before anyone bothered to
> > waste his time testing astrology, there was overwhelmingly strong reason
> > to reject the theory, NOT because it fails to be science in the strict
> > sense, but because it is idiotic.
>
> It is like I had already read it somewhere. :-)
> I agree with you that astrology is bunk, but I can't definitely agree
> with all what you are saying here. For example, "it is idiotic" is a mere
> opinion of yours, whereas Jung himself favoured the opposite opinion
> about the astrological theory ; I have no reason to take your opinion
> as more granted than Jung's.
>
> I would like to know if you really think it makes much sense to write :
> "NOT because it fails to be science in the strict sense, but because
> it is idiotic". What is the difference between things once considered
> as "evidence" by most of people, and the same things considered as
> "idiotic" for most of people, a few centuries later ?
The difference is the background knowledge against which the belief is
considered. Astrology can be dismissed, without bothering to study it,
because for it to be true, basic physics would have to be false. (A lot
of Jung can be too, e.g. his doctrine of synchronicity.) Strict science
doesn't necessarily produce univocal results over the years either.
Witness phlogiston or the ether. (By strict science I mean practices
requiring controlled observation and experiment.)
> In any case much of the MBTI theory (ordering of functions for example)
> seems to be as arbitrary and as unfounded as the astrological theory.
>
> > I don't think the same can be said of the typology.
>
> It may largely depend on the use you hope to do with that typology.
> The fact that something is partially correct, or not entirely wrong,
> doesn't mean it can be useful. As an example, the 7-day weather forecast
> is often given in France with no more than a claimed 40% reliability.
> Is it really useful to have an information not entirely wrong, but more
> often proven false than true ?
There are things we know with virtual certainty, but which knowledge is
not the product of science proper. For example, "we" have known for a
long time that humans have beliefs and desires, and that a person's
behavior can be predicted fairly reliably if we know his relevant
beliefs and desires. Strict science isn't the only basis for reliable
knowledge. And strict science isn't always _more_ reliable than that
which we know informally. It depends on the strength of the evidence,
regardless of whether it is strictly scientific or informal.
>
> > I do think the MBTI is psychometrically speaking a lousy test, and that
> > one who grasps the constructs can do a better job typing a person than
> > the MBTI. Probably much better.
>
> Maybe or maybe not.
> It's funny to observe such "experts" as they use to type well-known people
> such as : Bill Clinton, François Mitterrand, Balzac, Jung, etc. . All of
> them are convinced they are much better themselves than others in typing.
> Yet they are largely disagreeing between them. It's a very good example of
> self-delusion. And of the complete lack of reliability of their 'art'.
I agree with the first line, "Maybe or maybe not."
>
> > (For example, I can pretty much tell already that you are an ISTJ.
> > Your test results probably would NOT persuade me otherwise. ;) )
>
> LOL.
> (of course it's just humor, and I take it as humor)
>
> Several years ago, on this NG, somebody told me "with no more than
> one chance in a million to be wrong" I were an INTP, although he knew I did
> not test as an INTP !! In fact neither did I test as an ISTJ.
> Who is to be believed ?
What did you test as? In any event, anyone who says they are correct in
such a matter, with a probability of being wrong of one in a million, is
not to be believed in general. What is clearest to me is that you have
what they call a primary of secondary extraverted thinking function. I'd
take 4 to 1 odds on that, if there were a way to determine it. As to
ISTJ, my estimated probability of being correct is only a little more
than .5.
Our disagreement (as well as some difficulty we are having in
understanding one another, in thinking we are disagreeing, whereas we
are mostly only *emphasizing* different aspects of the problem, would in
type terms be interpreted as your extraverted thinking against my
introverted thinking, and, (with less confidence), your S against my N.
>
> At odds with you, many MBTIists have no humor and believe to be able to
> grasp
> any personality, just from a few lines written about a specific subject in a
> specific circumstance on the internet. It is meaningless of course, and a
> good example of self-delusion.
>
> Once, on another NG, somebody wanted me to send him a photograph of
> myself, for he claimed he was able to know my astrological sign just
> after my photo !!
> Then I asked him :
> " and so what if your determination would happen to be wrong ??"
> - "I would immediately make another attempt" he replied, adding :
> "As a rule I rarely need more than 3 or 4 attempts to be true".
>
> No comment, except that many MBTIists seem to behave exactly the same. ;-)
>
>
> > There is nothing in the theory to suggest that type is the only or even
> > the primary cause of interpersonal harmony or conflict.
>
> If the variability of the types does not have much incidence on
> interpersonal
> harmony or conflict, which is the practical use of predictions based on
> claimed 'type compatibility' ?
The predictions, if they are in fact useful, would be useful mainly in
predicting the *kinds* of harmony and disharmony that tend to occur
between various types. For instance (if I am right about you) there is a
certain harmony between us in our wish to have reasons for belief, and
subjecting those reasons to intellectual criticism, stemming (per
hypothesis) from our having primary or secondary thinking functions.
There is disharmony in our looking for different kinds of reasons--my
relative rationalism as contrasted with your relative empiricism, which
follows from the placement of the thinking function, and (with less
confidence) from an S versus N difference.
At the beginning of your post you asked why I thought Neuroticism was
less clearly a factor of *temperament* than the others. The reason I say
that is that it appears to be a unipolar factor, whereas temperament (at
least as I conceive it) is bipolar. There are advantages to being a an
introvert, and different advantages to being an introvert. Neuroticism
is more like intelligence, in that one pole is decidedly better than the
other. (However, this might not be completely true of Neuroticism, in
which event I think its name is misleading.)
Stephen Diamond
Operation Bomberclad
> "Stephen Diamond" <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, and this is long known as the "Forer effect" or "Barnum's".
> > > http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html
> > > (...)
> > > I am convinced they are entirely useless, except just for fun.
> >
> > Are you convinced based on your perceptions regarding its accuracy, the
> > lack of scientific validation, the lack of rigor of the derivations, or
> > the lack of face validity of for the scheme? Or all of the above?
>
> Thank you for your interesting question . :-)
> Here are the basics of my opinion, in 2 points.
>
> First, from a theoretical point of view :
> - lack of scientific methodology
> - use (= 'abuse') of the spurious notion of type
> - no validation seeked by the authors further than the Barnum effect.
>
> Second, from a pratical point of view :
> - no real applicability (who knows the 'true' type of somebody, since for
> most
> of the people you can adopt a set of 2, 3 or 4 possible type candidates ;
> moreover people as a rule disagree about one's type, when independent
> observations are made)
> - no confirmation by my own observations involving people whose type may
> be assessed, due to an agreement between independent observers
> (possibly 15 to 20% in the whole population).
I think the proposition that type is only relevant to 20% of the
population can be misleading. The very same argument that defeats
typology is used to exclusively benefit another hypothesis. That the
possiblity exists typology is untrue does not establish the veracity
of other theories which only contain possiblities. There is obviously
a realm of hypothesis which remains to be entered into scientific
fact. MBTI is only one of the hypothetical tools. Any successful
psychological theory must include the suppositions of MBTI and other
and demonstrate all hypothesis. This demands a scholarship and an
investigation of arcane material which is as yet is unmatched in
Jungian works.
> Additional comments :
> 1) it may happen that for several years an interpersonal relation has been
> functionning very well, and that 10 or 30 years later it will be no more.
> That means : at times this kind of occurrence will confirm the "law" and at
> others it will contradict the 'law'. In fact, there is no law.
Jung states unequivocally that the theory of the collective
unconscious and the theory of personality types is at best, a
hypothesis. It is an observation made in the hope that it sheds some
light in a very dark corner of the psyche that is difficult to
discern, the unconscious and its structure. Any voyage into the
analysis of archetypal material naturally places its own obstacles in
the path of discovery, because everyone must face the context of their
own collective situation and the content of their psyche.
> 2) temperamental factors are probably not the key factors for the quality of
> whatever interpersonal relation. In some cases they may have had a strong
> incidence, and in others a not so strong one. The first step would be to
> assess
> which part of the whole variance is accounted by temperamental factors.
> My guess : 30%, whereas environmental factors would be significantly higher
> than this figure.
>
> > or the lack of face validity
>
> I have been working for more than one year on an attempt of scientific
> validation
> of the results derived by experts from 'reading face'.
> Still in progress => I will be able to tell you about later.
>
> Alain Figer
If a curious person asks whether type can be used in the attempt to
establish a good relationship, it should be taken to mean that the
person in question has begun to assess their own archetypal material
in the most oblique fashion. Answering the question with
rationalizations about the validity of typology may have the
unintended consequence of discouraging that discovery.
It may be of little value to point out that typology has no more
credibility than astrology, because the result would be initially an
acceptance of logical reasoning either pro or con. But that would
also engender a resentment, a possible unconscious resistance to
rationalized explanations. This is because the advocate who
rationalizes will likely be transferring their archetypal material to
the person desirous of establishing a relationship, but in reality
taking the first tentative steps to opening their understanding to
their own lives.
By transferring archteypal material, the advocate of rationalization
is placing social controls over the relation between two people. The
outcome of this seeker/advocate relation is determined, very likely
along the lines of the intertype relations chart in Socionics. But
the unintended consequence may only be cutting off the person from
their own resources and to mistrust their own initiative in
relationships. If this occurs, then both advocate of rationalism and
curious person will have come under the influence of their collective
situation. What they share may not be good advice at all, but the
constellation of the mother archetype between them, which
hypothetically acts a brake on relations.
Relationships anecdotally fall under supervisory, super-ego, mirror,
and identity relations. These are banal collective situations which
occur as a matter of course between partners. But this does not go as
far as necessary to answer the call of loneliness and emptiness inside
a person when they are confronted with their own archtypal material
and ask whether there is a possiblity that happiness can be obtained
in a rewarding relationship with a partner.
Respectfully,
Fran
Alain Figer
> Our disagreement as well as some difficulty we are having in
> understanding one another (...) would in type terms be interpreted
> as your extraverted thinking against my introverted thinking, and,
> (with less confidence), your S against my N.
Our communication began as a "dialogue de sourds (deafs
dialogue)" indeed : the cause of that initial difficulty was possibly
more circumstantial than temperamental, I would suggest.
Evident differences in culture, in environment, even in language are
objective obstacles to understand well each other at once.
Both of us can overcome it in the long run, I would bet.
>> > (For example, I can pretty much tell already that you are an ISTJ.
>> > Your test results probably would NOT persuade me otherwise. ;) )
>> LOL.
> As to ISTJ, my estimated probability of being correct is only a little
> more than .5.
LOL.
I can see you are beginning to become more reasonable !
And, within a few weeks, you might lower your estimation well under 0.5.
:-)
>> (...) I were an INTP, although he knew I did not test as an INTP !!
>> In fact neither did I test as an ISTJ.
> What did you test as?
In a test assessing Big 5 factors, on a 5-point scale (1 to 5), I would get
:
E=2 (introverted) O=4 (open) A=2 (not-agreeable) C=4 (conscientious)
and N=3 (average Emotional Stability).
Taking in account that result, no surprise if I use to test as an INTJ
in the MB system.
Whenever I read any INTJ portrait, I am able to identify in it at least to
a certain extent, although I use to find that kind of portrait poorly and
very partly accounting for the reality. As a rule, it doesn't grasp what
is really important, I think.
Moreover, turning to the other 15 portraits, I use to find several ones
which seem to fit about as good (in any case: 'not worse') as the INTJ
one. Of course, a lot of the remaining ones (say a half-dozen) do not fit
at all, and must be rejected, such as ISTP,ESFJ,ESFP,ISFP.
From an experiment conceived for rating the match to each of the 16
portraits, I derived the following ranking for myself :
1. INTJ , 2. INFP , 3. INFJ , 4. INTP , 5. ISTJ , 6. ENFJ , etc.
Note there is no consensus about any official set of portraits, and
the above result may strongly depend on the chosen sets of portraits.
What was remarkable in that experiment was the low significance of
the best match, that one to the INTJ portrait getting only about 30%
reliability,
what means containing indications more often wrong than true .
Of course 30% reliability is decidedly better than 0%, but you could
easily discard such a loosy information without causing to you any
significant loss of knowledge !
From specific tests assessing my preferred function-attitudes, I
consistently
obtained this ranking : 1. Fi , 2. Ti , 3. Ni , 4. Te , 5. Si , 6. Ne ,
7. Se and Fe (both rather low and unsignificant). Obviously,
according to the MB theory, such an order would be impossible.
Taking your high N as granted, I am confident enough in your
imagination for believing that you will find an 'ad hoc' explanation
(accounting well for all the material I gave you above) that
would blatantly confirm the validity of the MB theory. ;-)
Now, you know for sure I'm an ISTJ (or of whatever type you would
happen to prefer to pigeonholing me), I would like to simply ask you :
Which extra-knowledge have gou gained about me-being-an ISTJ
type (or whatever label you eventually may prefer calling me) that
you didn't have got before and that I didn't already gave you willingly ?
- either from the content of my written posts
- or from the way I conceived them
- or from the fact I've been connecting on the internet for years,
- or from the "fr" in my address, and the poor english I used
- etc. etc. ?
> For instance (if I am right about you) there is a certain harmony
> between us in our wish to have reasons for belief,
> and subjecting those reasons to intellectual criticism,
I can tell you there is strictly the same "harmony" between my
strongly-F wife (ENFP) and myself.
She will rarely accept what I say about any controversial matter
without asking me which are my reasons to believe what I say ;
and she subjects my reasons to her intellectual criticism.
I even believe that everybody can do it, and do it to a certain
extent ,even if they may choose to keep it for themselves or
not, for different reasons according to circumstances.
(For example, shy T-people may seem to accept what is said,
as if they had no critical spirit.)
> stemming (per hypothesis) from our having primary or
> secondary thinking functions.
See the above counter-example, showing you made a sweeping
generalization.
> There is disharmony in our looking for different kinds of reasons
> --my relative rationalism as contrasted with your relative empiricism,
> which follows from the placement of the thinking function, and (with
> less confidence) from an S versus N difference.
I dont' think it would be very "rational" to draw any definitive
conclusion from what you believe to have perceived in an essentially
subjective way.
Moreover, you may be "more rational than me" (and that mere
allegation of yours might deserve to be actually better *proven*
before to be believed by any sensed rationalist !) without me ceasing
to be "much more rational than average", hence remaining possibly
within the same type as you.
Alain Figer
Stephen Diamond
"Alain Figer" <fg...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> In a test assessing Big 5 factors, on a 5-point scale (1 to 5), I would get
> :
> E=2 (introverted) O=4 (open) A=2 (not-agreeable) C=4 (conscientious)
> and N=3 (average Emotional Stability).
> Taking in account that result, no surprise if I use to test as an INTJ
> in the MB system.
>
> Whenever I read any INTJ portrait, I am able to identify in it at least to
> a certain extent, although I use to find that kind of portrait poorly and
> very partly accounting for the reality. As a rule, it doesn't grasp what
> is really important, I think.
> Moreover, turning to the other 15 portraits, I use to find several ones
> which seem to fit about as good (in any case: 'not worse') as the INTJ
> one. Of course, a lot of the remaining ones (say a half-dozen) do not fit
> at all, and must be rejected, such as ISTP,ESFJ,ESFP,ISFP.
INTJ was my second choice for you. I think the test got it right, the
new data being the latter part of your post. Extraverted thinking (in an
introvert) actually was (as I said) what I was most sure of.
>
> From an experiment conceived for rating the match to each of the 16
> portraits, I derived the following ranking for myself :
> 1. INTJ , 2. INFP , 3. INFJ , 4. INTP , 5. ISTJ , 6. ENFJ , etc.
> Note there is no consensus about any official set of portraits, and
> the above result may strongly depend on the chosen sets of portraits.
> What was remarkable in that experiment was the low significance of
> the best match, that one to the INTJ portrait getting only about 30%
> reliability,
> what means containing indications more often wrong than true .
> Of course 30% reliability is decidedly better than 0%, but you could
> easily discard such a loosy information without causing to you any
> significant loss of knowledge !
>
> From specific tests assessing my preferred function-attitudes, I
> consistently
> obtained this ranking : 1. Fi , 2. Ti , 3. Ni , 4. Te , 5. Si , 6. Ne ,
> 7. Se and Fe (both rather low and unsignificant). Obviously,
> according to the MB theory, such an order would be impossible.
>
> Taking your high N as granted, I am confident enough in your
> imagination for believing that you will find an 'ad hoc' explanation
> (accounting well for all the material I gave you above) that
> would blatantly confirm the validity of the MB theory. ;-)
My standards for confirmation really _are_ higher than to credit ad hoc
explanations, which I could offer, but would go nowhere to confirm
anything. I'll go this far. You are an INTJ, the most skeptical of
types. You will naturally be biased toward disconfirmation in your
responses to tests that are supposed to afford convert validations.
>
> Now, you know for sure I'm an ISTJ (or of whatever type you would
> happen to prefer to pigeonholing me), I would like to simply ask you :
>
> Which extra-knowledge have gou gained about me-being-an ISTJ
> type (or whatever label you eventually may prefer calling me) that
> you didn't have got before and that I didn't already gave you willingly ?
And by that question I recognize that I was in fact wrong: you are an
INTJ.
I'll say that I'm much more impressed with the socionics scheme than the
MBTI. Here's what they socionics people say about the relations between
you and men. It should be noted, though, that in the socionics system
your type is denominated INTP; mine INTJ, the P and J reversing from the
MBTI. With that change the types are (to my mind) essentially the same.
The socionics scheme defines us as "quasi-identical" types, with the
following result.
"These are relations of major misunderstanding. Quasi-Identical partners
can interact with each other in a more or less peaceful manner if both
partners are Thinking types. If they are both Feeling types however,
they are likely to have an argumentative relationship. Also, as in the
other relations, personal attraction can be very crucial to the
peacefulness in their relationship. An absence of personal attraction
may cause unnecessary internal tension resulting in conflict between
partners. However these arguments do not often last long. After both
partners have released their internal tension, the Perceiving partner is
usually the first to show the initiative in reconciliation.
"A positive aspect of these relations is that Quasi-Identical partners
do not underline your weak points and therefore are not viewed as
dangerous by each other. Neither do they see each other as equal. Each
partner sees the other as less capable than themselves, hence less
talented. However, Quasi-Identicals mistakenly believe that their
partner is achieving more than they are. This is perceived by both
partners as injustice and may hinder the ambitions of both.
"In these relations partners always have difficulty understanding each
other in full. Quasi-Identical partners always need to convert each
other's information in such a way that it corresponds with their own
understanding. This conversion requires much energy and does not bring
the desired satisfaction. Books written by your Quasi-Identical are
impossible to read. The creations of your Quasi-Identical look
monstrous. Conversations with your Quasi-Identical, although not heavy,
do not bring any satisfaction either. One partner may think that the
other partner complicates simple things and simplifies the important
points, trying to deliberately confuse and mislead them. Both partners
are convinced that whatever their partner was trying to say, could be
explained in a different and more understandable way.
"Quasi-Identicals normally have no difficulties in finding topics for
conversation or discussion. When it comes to solving problems together,
Quasi-Identical partners begin to understand that they are both thinking
in very different ways. Soon Quasi-Identicals may start regretting the
time that they have spent together, believing that it was just wasted
time. Quasi-identical relations are very fragile and normally break
without regret as there is usually nothing to resist their disunion."
Do you really not find that illuminating. If need be I'll pick out the
descriptors I would not have anticipated as applying. The reason I'm
impressed is that I hape a type scheme of my own, and I am dismayed to
find that socionics seems to do better than mine.
>
> - either from the content of my written posts
> - or from the way I conceived them
> - or from the fact I've been connecting on the internet for years,
> - or from the "fr" in my address, and the poor english I used
> - etc. etc. ?
>
> > For instance (if I am right about you) there is a certain harmony
> > between us in our wish to have reasons for belief,
> > and subjecting those reasons to intellectual criticism,
>
> I can tell you there is strictly the same "harmony" between my
> strongly-F wife (ENFP) and myself.
> She will rarely accept what I say about any controversial matter
> without asking me which are my reasons to believe what I say ;
> and she subjects my reasons to her intellectual criticism.
My wife is an ENFP too. To go out on a limb, I think your wife is
motivated by a desire to know (which happens to be the socionics "hidden
agenda" of the ENFP), NOT by a concern to have reasons for belief. It is
a subtle distinction, but that _is_ what typologies are for, in my
opinion: to distinguish what would otherwise seem identical. (Of course,
just because of the subtlety, it is easy to be (self-) *deceived* into
seeing a distinction where none exists, OR to think one has
distinguished correctly where one has made a mistake.)
>
> I even believe that everybody can do it, and do it to a certain
> extent ,even if they may choose to keep it for themselves or
> not, for different reasons according to circumstances.
> (For example, shy T-people may seem to accept what is said,
> as if they had no critical spirit.)
>
> > stemming (per hypothesis) from our having primary or
> > secondary thinking functions.
>
> See the above counter-example, showing you made a sweeping
> generalization.
See my distinction, which answers your counter-example. ;)
>
> > There is disharmony in our looking for different kinds of reasons
> > --my relative rationalism as contrasted with your relative empiricism,
> > which follows from the placement of the thinking function, and (with
> > less confidence) from an S versus N difference.
>
> I dont' think it would be very "rational" to draw any definitive
> conclusion from what you believe to have perceived in an essentially
> subjective way.
But this is precisely the empiricist critique of rationalism!
>
> Moreover, you may be "more rational than me" (and that mere
> allegation of yours might deserve to be actually better *proven*
> before to be believed by any sensed rationalist !) without me ceasing
> to be "much more rational than average", hence remaining possibly
> within the same type as you.
A difference between your extraverted thinking and my introverted
thinking is that you see proof as (potentially) public demonstration,
whereas I see it as internal coherence.
One thing the typology seems to do for me, that I would not have
otherwise done, is to recognize my approach as just as one-sided as
yours, whereas otherwise I would be apt to dismiss your intellectual
methodology as simply ass backward.
Stephen Diamond
Alain Figer
> Alain Figer wrote :
>> [many MBTIists] believe to be able to grasp
>> any personality, just from a few lines written about a specific
>> subject in a specific circumstance on the internet.
>> It is meaningless of course, and a good example of self-delusion.
Stephen Diamond wrote :
> (For example, I can pretty much tell already that you are an ISTJ.
as well as :
> Your test results probably would NOT persuade me otherwise. ;) )
Later, after I questioned your initial guess, you corrected :
> As to ISTJ, my estimated probability of being correct is only a little
> more than .5.
Still later, after I have issued the results of experiments I had led
and of tests I had taken - showing growing evidence of your mistake -
you accepted that I decidedly was not an ISTJ :
> I think the test got it right (...)
> I recognize that I was in fact wrong: you are an INTJ.
After your mistaken guess, you did straightfully another guess, even
more "strangest", that appears just calumny-like to me.
> You will naturally be biased toward disconfirmation in your
> responses to tests that are supposed to afford convert validations
By writing that, you overlooked I had been just providing you with an
evidence of the contrary : as the result of my test in the 'Big 5'
brought independent confirmation of the results obtained for myself
using the taxonomy of the 'MBTI'.
More basically, what you wrote means more or less the following :
. Alain adressed critics against the MBTI theory.
. From what says the MBTI theory, since he is an INTJ he will be
biased whenever testing the theory.
. Hence he will probably be wrong in his critics against MBTI theory.
Such a way of reasoning is another example of "circular
reasoning", something known as logically inconsistent.
Testing as an INTP doesn't prevent you to do circular reasoning,
at times.
Moreover, you leaved unanswered my former question :
> Which extra-knowledge have gou gained about me-being-an ISTJ type
> ([or INTJ] or whatever label you eventually may prefer calling me) that
> you didn't have got before and that I didn't already gave you willingly?
In fact the right answer might be : 'about nothing'.
Best wishes (and 'Good Luck' using all of your pseudo-science !)
Alain Figer
Stephen Diamond
In article <3d80ddb1$0$11813$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>,
"Alain Figer" <fg...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> After your mistaken guess, you did straightfully another guess, even
> more "strangest", that appears just calumny-like to me.
>
> > You will naturally be biased toward disconfirmation in your
> > responses to tests that are supposed to afford convert validations
>
> By writing that, you overlooked I had been just providing you with an
> evidence of the contrary : as the result of my test in the 'Big 5'
> brought independent confirmation of the results obtained for myself
> using the taxonomy of the 'MBTI'.
>
>
> More basically, what you wrote means more or less the following :
>
> . Alain adressed critics against the MBTI theory.
> . From what says the MBTI theory, since he is an INTJ he will be
> biased whenever testing the theory.
> . Hence he will probably be wrong in his critics against MBTI theory.
This does not accurately state my meaning. The point wasn't that your
tests of the theory are, by reason of your "type," invalid, but that
your assessment of *yourself* will be more likely to be biased against
the theory than if you were any different type. Obviously, your
self-assessment, with a view to testing the theory, is not
"double-blind." It isn't as if I wrote that any research you conducted
would be invalid, simply by virtue of your scores.
Although my response was not circular, it wasn't very persuasive,
nonetheless. Actually, there is a more interesting line of response.
When you tested for the components of the type, you indicated that you
scored highest on introverted feeling. In the socionics scheme, an INTJ
(using the nomenclature of MBTI, for convenience) has a "beneficiary"
relationship to INFP. This means, in essence, that the INTJ most admires
the INFP . . . the introverted feeling type. (Another introverted
feeling type is supposedly ISFP, but I don't think that type *extists*,
but that's another story.) When one incorrectly appraises ones own type,
it is most likely to be in the direction of the type most admired. So
there you have the ad hoc explanation you expected. ;)
>
> Such a way of reasoning is another example of "circular
> reasoning", something known as logically inconsistent.
> Testing as an INTP doesn't prevent you to do circular reasoning,
> at times.
Actually, even as you construed the reasoning, it would not be
*circular*. Ad hoc, yes; circular, no. If you disagree, please state the
conclusion that is assumed by the argument.
(I think you have in mind a critique similar to that often made of
psychoanalytic interpretations. An interpretation is offered, the
patient negates it, and the analyst explains the negation by invoking
'resistance.' It is sometimes said that the reasoning is circular,
because, by invoking resistance, the analyst is assuming the truth of
the theory he is trying to prove. If the analyst deduced the existence
of a specific resistance from the theory, and then claimed the deduction
proved the theory, the argument would be circular. But, since he
observes the event he calls resistance, and then interprets that datum
*as* resistance, the proof (the observation) is not deduced from the
theory. The *explanation* of the data is, and that is perfectly
legitimate, unless every observation could be explained, in which case,
you have a degenerating research program, not a circular argument.)
> Moreover, you leaved unanswered my former question :
>
> > Which extra-knowledge have gou gained about me-being-an ISTJ type
> > ([or INTJ] or whatever label you eventually may prefer calling me) that
> > you didn't have got before and that I didn't already gave you willingly?
OK, I'll answer directly. The information I would not have had before
includes 1) that I will find considerably greater value in your comments
than on deeper consideration than on first sight; 2) that despite the
interestingness of some of your comments, I will have remarkably little
motivation to pursue them with you; 3) that despite having disagreements
of a kind that usual involve me emotionally, I feel no rancor toward
you; 4) if I wanted to convince you, I would have to translate my points
into a more operational language than that to which I am accustomed.
The above is what I have verified in our interaction. But there are
other predictions. One that I invoked in my somewhat ad hoc explanation
above of your pattern of scores is that you will tend to admire INFPs.
That isn't, if tre, by any means apparent, otherwise.
>
> In fact the right answer might be : 'about nothing'.
>
>
>
> Best wishes (and 'Good Luck' using all of your pseudo-science !)
One other point on which you were correct, just for the record. You were
right, I think, that Neuroticism is a true factor of temperament, and is
not represented in the theory of types. And this is where I gained the
most from this interaction: I think I see the way to amend the theory so
as to include Neuroticism.
Stephen Diamond
Alain Figer
> <posted & e-mailed>
I have appreciated your measured language and I will choose to answer you by
private e-mail : in my opinion it often is an appropriate way to end
lenghty threads, that might have be found very boresome by others in the NG
for having involved for long only the same 2 people.
I will now make a suggestion for the NG :
"Neuroticism-factor and MBTI" as well as "Circular reasoning" are
interesting matters and possible subjects for specific future threads. For
the case somebody would agree to open a new thread on either subjects, I
would be available to discuss those matter more exhaustively.
Alain Figer